Today I want to address some of the questions I have received about what is going on with Scotland Yard's handling of the Madeleine McCann review and DCI Andy Redwood's public appearances sharing the Met's progress on the case, his dissemniation of information, and his outreach to the public for help.

Q) Is Redwood being a very clever fellow, eliminating all other possibilities one by one (thereby leaving what is left to be the real scenario) and then swooping in on the McCanns? Is he also trying to unnerve them in the process, part of his plan to get them to break down and confess?

A) I wish, but no. I find such investigative strategy hard to swallow or believe, especially since it is so pubic, so drawn out, and so expensive. First of all, presenting a myriad of possibilities that you actually cannot eliminate means you have not proved that one of them couldn't have happened. It could have been gypsies, it could have been a lone sex predator, it could have been a burglary gone bad with the accidental killing of a child, it could have been a sex ring posing as charity workers, it could have been some insane rich couple hiring a kidnapper to bring them a child of their choice, it could have been an Arab Sheik wishing to add a blonde child to his growing little girl harem, it could have been a psychotic man who thought Maddie was he beloved dead child come to life...and on and on. The only way you can really eliminate certain scenarios is to have absolute ones that can be disproved with evidence and even then, it doesn't prove that the most likely one left is in fact the correct one, it just that maybe you should spend more time focusing on that likelihood.

Secondly, all this does is actually give the McCann's support for their theory that someone abducted Madeleine. Think about it: every time Redwood opens his mouth, he is proclaiming that abduction is the theory he is basing all his investigative efforts on; he is reaffirming that the McCann's are not involved in the crime and there is no need to go back and reinvestigate any of the Tapas 9.

And, finally, it makes no sense to spend millions to investigate pointless avenues when you simply can go straight to the evidence and put your efforts into reanalyzing what is right in front of your face.

Q) Could the Algarve serial predator have taken Maddie?

A) Sure. I have always believed that if the McCanns were not involved in the disappearance of their daughter, then it was most likely, 99% most likely, that a lone local child sex predator grabbed her, sexually assaulted her, and murdered her within hours. Murat was not a bad suspect due to his somewhat odd behavior, his familiarity with the area, and the location of his mother's home just down the street. He was a great red herring and the police were not unreasonable in making him a suspect in the early days. And, no, Madeleine is not buried on his property.

Q) Since Andy Redwood just recently admitted that Madeleine might have died in the apartment, isn't he giving credence to cadaver and blood dogs?

A) Not at all. He simply is "admitting" that Madeleine might not be alive, that she may have been killed during the commission of a crime - during sexual assault, abduction, or just to prevent her from screaming because she saw someone in the process of burglarizing the apartment. She would have been only dead for seconds or minutes in those scenarios and have left nothing for the dogs to hit on. Admitting this can eliminate the need to search for Maddie endlessly throughout the world and respond to the many future sightings that will surely pop up from time to time; one can lay blame on a tolerably believable dead or incarcerated suspect and put the case to rest because Maddie can no longer be rescued.

Q) What is the motive of Scotland Yard and Andy Redwood then? If Redwood does not have some brilliant plan to finally bring down the McCanns nor is he really going to catch a predator who abducted Maddie, what is this whole charade about?

A) Well, we are back to some bizarre political issues which I am unable to address. What is clear to me is the evidence still points to the McCanns, the "review" is a sham because even if Scotland Yard leaned away from the McCanns as being involved in the disappearance of their daughter, their incredible refusal to even review the physical and behavioral evidence from the crime scene and days following is astounding and unprofessional and is a standard procedure if to do no more than to clear the parents and search for overlooked clues. Likewise, their astonishing expenditures chasing foolish leads also makes little sense. Redwood's Crimewatch fabrication and his recent outreach to the public for more information on a suspect that already has been investigated by the PJ lead me to believe he is simply playing a part in the drama to which he has been assigned and, being a bit of a ham, he is actually enjoying the role.

It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past. We can see quite clearly that this plan is working for the media has overwhelmingly presented all the new theories and "developments' with enthusiasm. I have been around long enough to see this kind of game played out before, albeit in a bit milder form, and it works. Eventually, the truth gets buried and those that fight to keep it alive are labeled conspiracy theorists and nuts.

My only hope is that at least Gonçalo Amaral will win his day in court, that Portugal will somehow stand by the law and keep this avalanche of revisionist history from crushing truth and justice. I feel less then confident that the outcome will be what I wish and this whole episode will simply be sealed and delivered into history as the victors desire, but I still keep my fingers crossed for the smallest chance of a miracle.

Pat's interview starts at 24.09. She develops what she said in her article and thinks that S.Y leaks in the papers are made to boost the concept that Madeleine is dead, killed by an unknown pedophile,that the McCann are exonerated, SY worked a lot on the case but it's time now to close it. She stresses the fact that S.Y work, not on evidences but on assumptions.Interesting ( even if it was sometimes difficult for me to understand the words).What is very positive is the fact that the journalist obviously respects Pat Brown's jugement and that a lot of American listeners have a non biased info on what is going on now in the Maddie Mccann 's case.

Thanks for posting both of these interviews. I think that Pat Brown is spot on in her assessment. The problem is that the general public is not as gullible as Redwood and his puppeteer seem to think we are. Nobody is ever going to believe that it was the "dead paedo" who dunnit without any evidence. This charade has gone on long enough. At least Redwood has finally admitted that Madeleine is possibly dead, thus bolstering Amaral's chances of winning his case.

SY should never have spent a cent on this investigation without having conducted polygraphs on those at the center of the disappearance (McCanns, M. Oldfield, Tanner, and D. Payne). It was well within SY's right to say that they would not spend taxpayer money on an investigation until they were convinced that the five people mentioned are telling the truth. To not have done so, just shows what a complete farce and waste of money the entire investigation has been.